Cycle paths at risk under government plans to restore disused railway lines

hawkinspeter wrote:

With the development of electric vehicles and hopefully autonomous vehicles, surely the time to invest in the railway has long passed. Scrap the railway and keep/improve the cycle paths - the health benefits will pay for any cost.

AVs could undermine the case for some rail services but probably not major inter-city and commuter services - which is what railways are best at and private transport isn't suited to.

Ironically, it's probably the sorts of routes that are being talked about as potentially re-opening (i.e. not major inter-city or heavy commuter flows) which are most at risk from AVs. Which is yet another reason why the announcement is probably so much hot air.

But the future is hard to predict - the demise of the railways was widely accepted as inevitable 30 years  ago but the opposite has happened. Passenger numbers have doubled.

CGT wrote:

When they re-opened the borders railway that ran south from Edinburgh it had been used as a cyclepath.

That's Scotland though. They have been much more active in re-opening lines - not just the Borders route but Airdrie-Bathgate, Larkhall, Alloa. The Scottish Government spend lots more on transport than is the case down south (other than in London). I'm not sure any old lines (as opposed to the odd chord or connection) have been re-opened in England in the past 20 years.

Airdrie-Bathgate also had a cycle path on the trackbed but that's been rebuilt, mostly alongside the restored line, although not entirely. 

CGT wrote:

When they re-opened the borders railway that ran south from Edinburgh it had been used as a cyclepath.
They didn't add another one alongside it. I think they missed a trick. I could easily imagine families taking the train from Edinburgh, getting off at a midpoint station, cycling along (the route is very beautiful), then getting a train back to the city a few stops later. Would have been good to boost tourism in the area and give people a quick, easy and safe way to get out on bikes in the countryside - which can't be a bad thing.

Some form of guidance that says that new railway lines should have cycle paths built alongside would be a good move you'd think. Since railway lines are generally pretty flat and trains help you get your bikes to/from countryside cycling destinations it would be a good way to get people into leisure cycling.

I was just wondering what had happened there (the Borders rail line), yip it seems like they have  definitely missed a trick.  

OT About the time it got the go ahead cycling by I noticed someone had built a nice new house on the then to be reopened line :-o

fenix wrote:

I can't see that those lines would make much difference. Which is probably why they were closed in the first place. Oxford to Cambridge looks interesting but I doubt it's going to happen.

Actually, reopening the Bristol to Portishead line will *really* screw up the cycle route into Portishead.  So that's one.

brooksby wrote:

fenix wrote:

I can't see that those lines would make much difference. Which is probably why they were closed in the first place. Oxford to Cambridge looks interesting but I doubt it's going to happen.

Actually, reopening the Bristol to Portishead line will *really* screw up the cycle route into Portishead.  So that's one.

Mind if I ask why ? Can't say I've ever bumped into the old line going there or back but then I tend to go over the M5 and in via the lanes that way.

fukawitribe wrote:

brooksby wrote:

fenix wrote:

I can't see that those lines would make much difference. Which is probably why they were closed in the first place. Oxford to Cambridge looks interesting but I doubt it's going to happen.

Actually, reopening the Bristol to Portishead line will *really* screw up the cycle route into Portishead.  So that's one.

Mind if I ask why ? Can't say I've ever bumped into the old line going there or back but then I tend to go over the M5 and in via the lanes that way.

Large chunks of the route when you go from Pill, turn left instead of up onto the Avonmouth bridge, are built right next to the old tracks. And They have already started saying that it's far too close to an active line so the cycle route will need to be moved.  

brooksby wrote:

Large chunks of the route when you go from Pill, turn left instead of up onto the Avonmouth bridge, are built right next to the old tracks. And They have already started saying that it's far too close to an active line so the cycle route will need to be moved.  

Do you have a link to where this has been discussed? 

The two obvious points of conflict are where the path goes under the Marsh Lane bridge and where it goes through the M5 bridge underpass.  The Marsh Lane section is easily bypassed (coming from Portishead you continue straight on, rather than turning right, which takes you across Marsh Lane before remerging with the path on the approach to the M5) and the M5 underpass route could be fairly easily re-routed under the span of the bridge towards the river (there is already a path that goes in that direction, it would just need about 50m of new path to cross the marsh to link it to Pill).  I don't know if there are any land-owner issues with these alternatives but, assuming no legal issues,  I don't think they would have much effect on travel times.  Are there other sections of the route that will be affected that I've forgotten?

theironduck wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Large chunks of the route when you go from Pill, turn left instead of up onto the Avonmouth bridge, are built right next to the old tracks. And They have already started saying that it's far too close to an active line so the cycle route will need to be moved.  

Do you have a link to where this has been discussed? 

The two obvious points of conflict are where the path goes under the Marsh Lane bridge and where it goes through the M5 bridge underpass.  The Marsh Lane section is easily bypassed (coming from Portishead you continue straight on, rather than turning right, which takes you across Marsh Lane before remerging with the path on the approach to the M5) and the M5 underpass route could be fairly easily re-routed under the span of the bridge towards the river (there is already a path that goes in that direction, it would just need about 50m of new path to cross the marsh to link it to Pill).  I don't know if there are any land-owner issues with these alternatives but, assuming no legal issues,  I don't think they would have much effect on travel times.  Are there other sections of the route that will be affected that I've forgotten?

Its something I've picked up from the local news, I'll have a look and see if I can find links.

Mainly, its the section where it goes under the motorway: do you really think that They will want to spend actual genuine money on cyclists to build a new section of cycle lane across the Pill Foreshore (which is a nature reserve, IIRC).

brooksby wrote:

Its something I've picked up from the local news, I'll have a look and see if I can find links.

Cheers, I had wondered if an assessment had been done on the impact to the cycle path. 

brooksby wrote:

Mainly, its the section where it goes under the motorway: do you really think that They will want to spend actual genuine money on cyclists to build a new section of cycle lane across the Pill Foreshore (which is a nature reserve, IIRC).

Given the ever-inflating cost in hyper-pounds of reopening the railway (if it ever happens) the price of a bit of bike track (which would also serve peds, dog walkers and horse riders) is pretty minimal so, cynicism aside, I'm vaguely hopeful.  I can't find much about the Pill Foreshore nature reserve but I wonder where it starts?  There is already a freight railway going through that area as well as the current footpath so it's hardly pristine.

In the worst case you would be able to take Marsh Lane into Pill and then drop down to the pick up the path again as it heads to Ham Green.  It might actually be quicker to go that way but it is on-road.

fenix wrote:

I can't see that those lines would make much difference. Which is probably why they were closed in the first place. Oxford to Cambridge looks interesting but I doubt it's going to happen.

Oxford to Cambridge is definitely happening, its been on the governments stated DfT strategic plans for several years now, and only last week the budget shovelled some more funding at it, so you could argue its just reannouncing things theyve already announced.

The western section, which will be Oxford to Bedford, should be complete by 2024, and then its joining Bedford upto Cambridge, which is currently in consultation, but the link is expected to be very beneficial for freight services serving the ports in East Anglia, so theres perhaps more of a commercial push behind it, to get it done, than mere lets provide some new train track.

fenix wrote:

I can't see that those lines would make much difference. Which is probably why they were closed in the first place.

Anyone wishing to understand the complexities and agenda of the Beeching and Marples era, why the car is now king, and why public transport is woeful pretty much everywhere need not search out the treatises on the subject. Fenix has summed up one of the great scandals of the modernisation of the UK in 21 words.

fenix wrote:

I can't see that those lines would make much difference. Which is probably why they were closed in the first place. Oxford to Cambridge looks interesting but I doubt it's going to happen.

There speaks a man who's never had to get a bus from Ashington or Blyth to Newcastle so they can get a train to anywhere else....

exilegareth wrote:

fenix wrote:

I can't see that those lines would make much difference. Which is probably why they were closed in the first place. Oxford to Cambridge looks interesting but I doubt it's going to happen.

There speaks a man who's never had to get a bus from Ashington or Blyth to Newcastle so they can get a train to anywhere else....

 

Fair enough.  I think I've only been to Newcastle the once anyway. 

Woldsman wrote:

Ah. Via Twitter: 

“Map of rail routes that could be reopened under Chris Grayling’s plan – The Times”

 

Note that due to the GRIP process (can't remember the acronym, but 8 or 9 stages of decisions about decisions, basically) which is applied to rail projects, and the tough benefit:cost ratio (and the way it's calculated), "planned" does not mean any more than "a document exists". 

Drinfinity wrote:

I'd love to see the Woodhead line through the tunnels to Sheffield reopen. My Grandad used to work that line, and I saw the last trains pulling the track up. Not a Beeching job though, and has a reservoir dam extension in the way now. 

The woodhead tunnel has been filled with 400kV cables by National Grid in recent years. These replace cables that ran through the adjacent Victorian tunnels which were becoming structurally unsafe. So would be a choice between transport links or electricity, or spending a helluva lot of money to get both...i.e won't happen!

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

....Can you imagine £50Billion spent on cycling infra!!

 

Take back one side of existing through and main roads in towns and city centres thus saving a shit ton of money and it meeting the recommended width easily and have one way systems for motors, make it as difficult as possible for motorists and and change the whole road layout. Build 3 metre wide lanes along trunk roads and old railway lines are then no longer needed at all, they are a quiet day out purely for leisure.

Excellent suggestions.

This is how lanes have been co-opted for some of the London bike lanes - Camden's Royal College Street and Tavistock Place (the latter still currently under threat until an independent adjudicator write up his report in the new year following an expensive public enquiry -

thanks to a certain Mr hotellier and pals for that!!)

CS6, running north south, is massively oversubscribed, and as a two way track, in dire need of following the same treatment as Tavistock Place ie turning this lane into one way for cyclists, and taking a 'motor lane' on the other side to be the other direction cycle lane.

Leaving a single lane for motorists crossing Blackfriars Bridge would as you have suggested, "deter motorists" - something needed in bucket loads in London right now.

This is the kind of conversion that need not be so costly (at least compared to the equiavlent stuff for motors), yet would be quite straightforward to put in.

It should form a standard or template that should be considered as policy throughout London and the UK.

This and putting in shuttle coach hubs on theoutskirts of cities with a priority motorway lane (that perhaps this time round the Labour government could leave in place - remembering John Prescott's words about 'failing' - and the TV top gear buffoon fnhaa fnhaaing his little socks off when the lane was finally removed).

Some real feasible ideas need to be put out there, as the (hopefully) government in waiting need to show an awareness and readiness to make the essential changes across the place; (and they will need to be shown they can be trusted to discuss, liase with campaigners/advisors; act upon and implement measures rather than get elected and spend the first year and a half of their term in office doing very little - apart from cancelling shovel-ready bike schemes, and spending large quantities of money on a commissioner* to 'tell us how good cycling is')

  *No. Funnily enough I'm not talking about Gilligan or Boardman (!) 

To return to the point, London (and elsehwhere is in need of bigger thinking.

People won't get involved to spend a decade on more on one or two piecemeal schemes - only to have their hopes dashed by the political system allowing groups of pro-rat-runners, spouting off and scaring weakminded authorities. 

There need to be campaigns on a large scale now. Enough people need to express their being 'car-sick' (to coin Lyn Sloman's book title). And enough people need to put forward schemes for transforming entire towns and cities - confing traffic to a motor grid - or 'though traffic grid'.

As George Monbiot pointed out in today's Guardian article  :

Dirty air is killing our children. Why does the government let this happen?

 (with reference to schools trying to prevent school drop-off parents foulling the air around schools and deterring active transportation among children):

• Without this intervention, headteachers all over the country have to take on the issue one car at a time. Add up their efforts and you’re likely to find that this pointless replication runs into hundreds – perhaps thousands – of times the public labour that government action would require. If there is one group of people whose time is both stretched and socially valuable, it is headteachers.
• Some schools have lobbied their councils for traffic restriction orders, generally without success. But why should we have to fight the same battle borough by borough for our children’s health? Why should their lung capacity be subject to a postcode lottery?

Regarding the originl article here - and trains. I tend to have mixed feelings about restoring old lines.

Yes it would be great to have a working network (though as others here have now shown, this seems to far from the intention).

But generally I think it's preferable to take away from road space, or instal new rail way lines instead of new roads.

(sorry that went on a bit)     

Simboid wrote:

If  this ever does come to anything it will be decades away and happen in very few locations. We are skint and looking at staying that way for a long time.

I think you're right on the mark. I suspect this is largely spin and unlikely to lead to much action. Announcements, and even route studies, about the future are a cheap way to distract from today's hard realities.